Katzilla MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('Katzilla envelope { data, quality, citation }'), explains quality metrics ('freshness/uptime/confidence'), and details citation components ('source URL, license, SHA-256 hash'), which aids in understanding output behavior and auditability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by source details and return format explanation. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action and source, the second specifies update frequency, and the third details the output structure and components. No wasted words or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It explains the return format and quality metrics, which complements the structured data, ensuring the agent understands what to expect without needing to detail every output field.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (tableName, frequency, year) well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of table names beyond 'T10101' or clarification on year ranges. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'GDP and national income data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)', specifying the exact data source. It distinguishes from siblings like 'economic__bls-series' or 'economic__fred-series' by focusing on BEA-specific GDP/income data, not other economic indicators.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving BEA GDP/income data but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'economic__eurostat-gdp' or 'economic__world-bank'. It mentions the source and update frequency ('updates daily'), which provides some context, but lacks direct comparisons or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.